Here's the bottom line on the email server folks

[CajunBlazer]

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton didn't break any laws and no government data, clasifiied or otherwise, was ever compromised. And by the way it was her freaking department so she can change the rules or ignore the rules if you so chooses. On that subject there is only one person that she has to answer to and that is President Obama, and I haven't heard him complain yet.

So Sanders supporters can just get over it. Those of you who are waiting for the FBI had to arrest Hillary Clinton in the middle of one of her rallies are in for a big disappointment. And you should be ashamed of yourselves for hoping that would happen so their guy would have a chance to win even though he lost in every conceivable way possible. So find yourself something new to write about and get on with your life. Your candidate lost so it does no good to continue to repeat Republican talking points at this stage of the game.

Regardless of whether you choose to ignore this advice, you have only about a week and a half to continue to peddle this nonsense on DU. I guess since we put up with it this long, we can put up with it just a little longer.

[Bob41213]

1. The damning thing is how much she has lied...

All this shit in the last year has shown how much she lies. When the OIG report came out, it expressly showed she wasn't allowed, didn't asked permission, and should have. She lied for a year.

And when the FBI releases their report, I think we'll see she did break some laws.

[roguevalley]

9. the entire OP is a crock and if anyone shuts down discussion after the next vote

they cannot call themselves a democrat.

[WhiteTara]

82. This is the Democratic Underground

and if you can't support the party and the party's nominee, this is not your home. See the TOS and if you still have questions see the section called "Ask the Admin"

[riversedge]

107. Pffff!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

111. the OP sounds like 'Baghdad Bob'

[CajunBlazer]

112. Your little cartoon demonstrates that you live in dream world

Reality is going to be tough for you to deal with.

Let's talk June 8th - oh, maybe not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

113. maybe late July?

[CajunBlazer]

114. yea, maybe you wil kick your Bernie addiction by then.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

115. Maybe you will kick your Hillary addiction by then

[CajunBlazer]

117. Not possible

Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. By then Sanders will be back in the Senate. Maybe if he behaves himself the Senate Democratic Caucus will let him retain his committee assignments after the election.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

122. We'll see

[Arneoker]

25. You seem to have a problem with

That, "because of X, therefore Y," thingy.

I'm not going to parrot Team Hillary, I think that she should have been a lot more meticulous about making sure that she followed the rules. But I've worked for the Federal government for about 40 years, as both a direct employee and contractor, and I can tell you that there is a big difference between rules and laws. There are a lot of rules in government, and quite a lot of them are typically honored in the breach. Which is no excuse, but it doesn't mean that she broke the laws either.

[Hoyt]

28. Exactly. And, like in private businesses, a lot of those rules/policies are written, knowing they

won't, or can't, be followed. It's more to protect someone's, or the organization's, rear end.

[MrTriumph]

101. Say what!? What rules that "won't, or can't" be followed?

What nonsense. Businesses establish procedures with the intention that they will and can be followed.

[Hoyt]

104. They do it to cover their ass in many cases, in case they get caught or

as an excuse to let someone go if they need "justification."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Why would Hillary need to lie? Unlesssss... she was trying to hide something?

No worries though... President Sanders will sort it all out.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[CajunBlazer]

118. Do you know who has the powere to change or ignore State Department rules?

The Secretary of State, because she ran the department. She doesn't have to answer to the State Department IG. She answered to only one person, and I don't hear him complaining.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. lol, you can't be serious... such elitism is precisely why the people are rising up! Viva la revolution!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[CorporatistNation]

46. Here Ya Go....

MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

[The_Casual_Observer]

84. And then they laugh it off and go to a cocktail party with Hillary and Bill, while you

sit in your little chair and steam about it endlessly.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. posting this over and over will not make it true

Please stop spamming the board.

[NanceGreggs]

4. Posting that Hillary will be indicted ...

... will not make it true. Maybe the BS supporters should stop spamming the board.

[bahrbearian]

11. Do you Trust Hillary, do believe she always tells the truth?

[CajunBlazer]

13. I trust her more than I trust you

But that's not a big revelation.

[stonecutter357]

30. i trust her a hell of lot more than bernie.

[Armstead]

42. I don't care if she's indoicted....I don't even think she should be if procedure is all there is to

But, if it turns out there is more to it than just a cockup to be more "convenient" then it becomes a different story.

In any event, her decision to bend the rules and then to be less than forthcoming about it onloy adds to the larger belief that she can't be trusted, and follows into a long pattern of behavior by she and her husband.....And that can't be lamed solely on the right-wing smear machine...The GOP tried that with Obama and failed because Obama actually does behave above bioard and respects ethics and integrity.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Perhaps you would prefer Donald Trump

Who lies every time his mouth moves.

[Armstead]

70. No i wouldn't....But that's not the point.

There are two separate issues involved.

Clinton v. Trump and Clinton on her own merits.

Clinton v. Trump is a no brainier. yeah Clinton is much preferable.

But whether she she be the Democratic nominee or is the best possible choice -- that's open to opinion. Somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of primary voters do not think so.

[CajunBlazer]

119. 40% to 45% of the primary voters backed the loser

[Armstead]

120. You want their votes for Clinton or not?

This is not a zero-sum game. You want to dismiss and insult almost half the primary voters (and others) who are "losers" be my guest. But if so, be prepared for the possibility that Clinton supporters may join the ranks of losers in November.

[floriduck]

102. We are all making biased assumptions here. If we could see the 22 emails that cannot be released

due to them being a national security threat, we would have more info to go on. But that alone certainly doesn't make her look very good.

[bobbobbins01]

3. Those aren't facts at all.

You can't just make shit up.

[hollysmom]

5. well, you are incorrect, one law she broke

is the one where she was required to turn over all her e-mails before leaving office, not spend two years having her lawyers look at them. Whey was it OK for non-state department officials to look through what could have been email with security issues - were her lawyers state department officials, I do not think so.

Either you believe in progressive things like transparency in government or you don't. Is the Democratic party going to come put against it or for it?

[CajunBlazer]

21. If you are holding your breath waiting for Hillary to be charged with that "crime"

I suggest you exhale; you're Looking a little blue in the gills.

I think that progressives should not be parroting GOP talking points after their candidate has lost the nomination. It's just not becoming.

[lmbradford]

56. Kerry is GOP now?

This is not a GOP anything. Kerry started this investigation. Its being looked into by Obamas IG from her former dept. Where do you guys get this stuff?

If this is ok with you, please put your ss# and bank acct# on an unsecure server with no password and place server in a home with numerous guards, maids, aides, and visitors.

Now imagine these are state secrets, agents real names, military ops, etc.

Are you crazy? This is HUGE.

[hollysmom]

73. I do not expect her to be charged, But it is out there

you can't bury some things under the rug. some times you have to pick up your big girl pants and face the facts.
This is not a GOP talking point - this is something coming out of hte government and under democratic leadership at that. This is a fac t there is no denying this is a fact, Well, not hno denying there is a heck of a lot of denying.

I expect Clinton to get away with this much as Petraeus got away with telling government secrets to his girlfriend, while lower level people get put in jail for minor infringements That is the privilege of the "elite". This Is not a fair society

[leftinportland]

6. Having an insecure private server in your home...

Conducting State Department high profile communications on said server illustrates extreme arrogance...and was a seriously stupid and fucked up thing to do.

[underthematrix]

8. The report focused on sensitive but unclassified SBU materials in

email communications.

The report mentioned as did Clinton classified materials and communications occur in or at locations designed for that purpose.

[CajunBlazer]

14. What makes the server insecure?

Having it in a house that is guarded by the Secret Service night and day? Or maybe it it was because it was so insecure that it never was successfully hacked even though the official State Department server had been hacked several times and reams of email data downloaded?

Believe what you want to believe; you will any way.

[NWCorona]

19. There's a few ways actually but the most pertinent is the fact that it was unknown and unauthorized.

[Seeinghope]

24. Not hacked because Secret Service was guarding it night and day? Hacking comes thru the cyber world

Not the front door. Her computer is said to have been hacked. She deleted 31,000 e-mails. She disobeyed her "bosses" order which was not to have Sid be an advisor for SD business.

[CajunBlazer]

50. Gee, I am an IT professional and I didn't know that

You Sanders fans truly are "fonts of knowledge".

By the way, the rest of your posts didn't make sense; and it didn't get any better when it was posted again below.

[Seeinghope]

93. I know thinking beyond Hillary Clinton lies are a little difficult.

[Seeinghope]

95. Oh and another word to add to your vocabulary is "cyberterrorist".

[Seeinghope]

96. Another helpful tip. Read post 78 it will further explain what I posted.

Like I said being a Hillary Clinton defender seems to inhibit your ability to think beyond what her people want you to think.

[dchill]

29. "Believe what you want to believe; you will any way."

Right back at ya.

[CajunBlazer]

49. Why don't you get rid of this duplicate post

The first one did make sense either

[leftinportland]

44. For starters...

For a several months at the beginner of her tenure as SOS there was no firewall installed on the server. Her Blackberry was not approved for use for email, in fact when she was at the State Dept. she was not allowed to use it in her office and had to exit a high security area to answer emails on it. Assuming she took the same level of precaution with her email server.

Her IT guy resided in DC and others without proper security clearance had physical access to server. When she left State the server was shipped off to a Mom n Pop computer company in Colorado for storage...again it was left vulnerable physically and digitally by people without proper clearance.

Question for you, WHAT made it secure...was it because her single IT guy, who had another job 100s of miles away, was soooo exceptional he was able to provide the same levels of security as State Dept IT professional staff 24/7.

[CajunBlazer]

54. You do know that...

Her server was only to be used for non sensitive emails.

That the official State Department's servers to be used for non sensitive emails had already been hacked multiple times

That former Secretaries of States used their private email accounts for non sensitive government business, accounts no more secure than my Yahoo account which has been hacked through no fault of my own several times.

That excellent firewall system was later installed. Until then the server was protected by internal security systems.

That a server used by only one person is intriniscly less susseptible to to human engineering (the most commonly used hacking technique) then servers used be many users.

That forensic investigations of her server logs showed no successful penetrations

[leftinportland]

67. Hackers rarely leave evidence

Classified emails were found on her server.
She even instructed staff to remove headers on documents in order to email them to her.
She was not the only one using the server, shared server with Clinton foundation.

I understand she wanted to keep her personal emails private or was it just the emails to Sydney B. she wanted to keep private. If it was such an inconvience for her to use two emails maybe she should not have accepted the job. Instead she did not follow State Dept. policy, risked State secrets, lied about it for a year...

and we are suppose to forget about all this like good Democrates and march lock step to the polls in November and vote for her. This may work for most loyal party members but a whole slew of independent voters will likely take a pass.

[CajunBlazer]

77. Bullshit!

Your clueless about server matters aren't you. Repeating what you have read without understanding context betrays you ignorance.

[leftinportland]

81. Bullshit?

Calling bullshit on the IG report then, call bullshit on Hillary's own email then...I am repeating what I've read...Hillary's own emails and the IG report...no matter how you spin this we are fucked if she becomes the nominee.

[840high]

83. Keep your head in the sand.

[Fawke Em]

78. Hackers don't need to be physically near the server, so this "Secret Service guards it" argument

is moot.

And, yes, .gov has been hacked, but the servers where classified info is kept have not been. SIPRnet was compromised once, but it was from a military thumb drive (and insider, if you will) and not from an outside hack. That was in 2008, before Clinton's tenure and before we had learned about the potential of thumb drives to introduce malware.

But, do you know why SIPRnet and JWICS are hard to hack? They don't use the World Wide Web - they use their own, closed-loop, internet of sorts, and you have to have clearance to access them.

Hillary is accused of having an aide hand-copy SIPRnet information, type it up in an email without classified headers and email it to her using the World Wide Web. That is a crime. Period.

[floppyboo]

103. don't forget the time the server sat in an unsecure apartment being wiped. By people with no

security clearance. That doesn't sound very good to me...

[highprincipleswork]

7. You are making way too many assumptions!!!!!!!!

[CajunBlazer]

16. I'm relying on probabilities

I have a tendency to assume that if something has 99% chance of happening that it will happen. On the other hand you are depending on something that has a 1% of happening actually coming to fruition. I call my approach "reality"; I call your approach "living in a dream world".

But then it is apparent that some Sanders fans have lived in a dream world for quite some time now. Why stop now, there is going to be rude awakening soon regardless of what they so.

[highprincipleswork]

52. And where in your reality did you get the figure of 99%? That really is suspicious, if you want to

talk about real world versus dream world.

[CajunBlazer]

55. 99% is close enough for government work

I was going to use 99.9% but why over state the obvious. Would you be more comfortable with 98.9%.

[highprincipleswork]

64. Sez you. I'll get back to you when it doesn't happen.

[CajunBlazer]

72. LOL

I'm not gong to live that long. No one lives that long. I've given up on the quest for immortality.

[thesquanderer]

10. re: "no government data, clasifiied or otherwise, was ever compromised"

Too soon to know. This first report focussed on preservation of records. It was not about the possible mishandling of classified data (that, as I understand it, is the focus of the forthcoming FBI report); nor did they even prove that no gv't data was ever compromised (there was evidence of hacking attempts, but the report did not go so far as to conclude that such attempts were definitely unsuccessful, that was specifically clarified in the press conference).

[CajunBlazer]

17. I guess you didn't read about that little leak from the FBI

If the all of the hopes of the Sanders campaign are based on the FBI report, they are hanging on a very thin thread.

[thesquanderer]

23. What "little leak from the FBI"? Link? (n/t)

[CajunBlazer]

80. Links:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-fbi-has-found-no-criminal-wrongdoing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297

[840high]

85. Those links are old - a lot

has been exposed since then.

[thesquanderer]

91. Thanks...

...and here's a link I found to the actual CNN report about "no criminal wrongdoing" ---

However, that's a little different from what my post was talking about, which was whether indeed as you said "no government data, clasifiied or otherwise, was ever compromised" which may be a different question from whether there was criminal wrong-doing.

For example, we know there were hacking attempts on her server; we know that in the press conference, the spokesman said he could not be sure none were successful. Taking that a step further, even if we learn that one or more was successful, that, in and of itself, is not necessarily evidence of criminal wrong-doing... though that's not to say that there might not be political fallout.

[Arneoker]

27. Kind of sad too

While I haven't been supporting Bernie, I have admired him for raising some big issues. Now so many of his supporters have resorted to parroting the tawdriest of RW talking points. Why not start looking at life post-Bernie, on how to advance the causes that he has been promoting?

[Tarc]

12. +1

The non-issue became even more of a non-issue following the IG report.

[IdaBriggs]

15. Baltimore Sun: Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280204202

Your post is consistent with that philosophy.

[CajunBlazer]

18. The brazen canidate beat your guy; get over it

[IdaBriggs]

20. It's not over until the convention. I know why you want to

pretend differently, but your opinion is not reality.

I will give your suggestion to "get over it" all the merit it is due. Have a nice day!

[CajunBlazer]

26. When one relies on something that has a 99% chance of happening...

... that's reality. When one relies on something that has a 1% chance of happening, that' living in a dream world. But evidently the dream world is a very familiar place for some Sanders fans; they have lived there for quite a while.

[Mike__M]

58. And that the most brazen canidate

beat* yours in November doesn't concern you, because why? Confused pragmatic with short-sighted?

*Past tense--long as we're throwing out legitimate time reference

[Seeinghope]

97. Trump beat all of his competitors. I guess that makes him the best candidate. Bush beat his

competitor. I guess that makes him the best choice. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter. I guess that made him the best choice. Great logic.

[Sparkly]

35. The post you linked was hidden by a jury.

No wonder. Jonah Goldberg?!?

[pinebox]

22. Amazing.

She passed classified info. Why the absolute disconnect and disbelief?


Let's get real.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

[Arneoker]

32. If you read the article you will find things are hardly black and white

This kind of thing turns out to be common practice. No excuse, but are we going to indict all of these other people? And don't reply, "But she used her private server." Doesn't matter. If you are supposed to use an encrypted network for classified material, using a less secure government system is not better than using a private system.

[pinebox]

37. While I mostly agree with you

The problem is it was classified info. That is what is going to get her.

[Sparkly]

36. Classified after the fact

Nothing she sent or received on that server was classified at the time.

[CajunBlazer]

38. At worst she received information that....

... was retroactively classified by one of our many of our spy agencies. One of the emails retroactivity classified was an email string discussing a Newsweek article.

Hillary does not believe that those emails should have been classified, and neither does the State Department. She has asked that they all be released so that the public can judge for themselves.

Why is it that progressives who normally cry out for transparency in this case put their faith in some unnamed government agency to decide for them what they should be able to read and what they should not be able to read. There's a word for that - it's "hyprocacy"

[pinebox]

41. Cajun....

She violated the official records act. She openly told her assistants NOT to speak of this. She and her assistants said no to interviews. She knew all along this was wrong to do and therefor didn't seek out permission to do this because she knew she would have been told "no". She outright lied to the American public for over a year about everything.

Watch the videos please.

She's in big trouble.

[CajunBlazer]

47. BS

She didn't cooperate with the prissy State Department IG's investigation because far more competent authorities were already investigating, like the FBI. My guess is that the IG got his little feelings hurt; thus the tone of the report.

The last few Secretaries of State had used far less secure public email accounts, like you and I use. Why wouldn't Hillary believe that a private server in a house guarded 24/7 by the Secret Service would be more secure.

Surely you don't expect the Secretary of State to spend her first few months on the job wading through 16 thick volumes of State Department regulations to read the 300+ sections in 13 of those volumes which cover emails, especially when she knew that the State Departments email servers used for non classified correspondence had already been hacked multiple times. Rember this was a time when most State Department employees were already using the private email accounts for their non classified correspondence because the official non-classified email system was too cumbersome to use.

And whow do you think can change the State Department regulations - oh, that would be the Secretary of State.

[TheSarcastinator]

34. when were you appointed FBI spokesputz?

Oh wait, you weren't.

Your "bottom line" came straight out of your bottom end.

[CajunBlazer]

40. When did you get appointed sole guardian of the truth?

Oh, I remember, it was the same day you became a Sanders fan. I forgot that Sanders fans are the fonts of all knowledge.

[Armstead]

39. A very unconvincing argument on many levels

And by the way it was her freaking department so she can change the rules or ignore the rules if you so chooses.

You ought to rethink that line of reasoning. Last I heard we live in a democracy where officials are supposed to be accountable. It's ironic too, since that is one of the concerns that has been raised about Trump.

[CajunBlazer]

43. Here's a faily convincing argument

A week and a half from now Hillary will effectively cinch the Democratic nomination. Once that happens further BS on this subject will be regarded as what it always was, GOP talking points, and it will be dealt with accordingly.

So have your fun while you still have a chance.

[Armstead]

45. Been here since 2001. Your smugness is your least convincing argument.

Seen a lot of changes and shifts, and been through many primaries and elections since then. This is just another episode.

Unless Skinner and Company totally change DU policy, people like myself are not going anywhere. Perhaps have to zip the lip, and stay away from the subject of the Election for a few months...and maybe take an extended vacay from, DU for a while.

But don''t be so smug to think that the issues involved are going anywhere. Nor are the people who support Sanders and what he represents. They were here long before Sanders, and will be here long after this primary and election are over.

[lmbradford]

60. Once again...

Kerry and Obama are not GOP!!#

[CajunBlazer]

75. Huh?

I don't understand Sanders speak

[lmbradford]

98. Kerry started this investigation

This is Obamas IG report. The whole thing is coming from Hillarys own dept and the Dems who run it now.


Please explain how any of this is GOP related?
She did this to herself.

Btw, if Bernie did this, i would no longer support him. I have integrity.

[karynnj]

88. DU did not become a sterile forum that only praised the nominee in any

prior year. There was a shift in what was allowed, but in 2004, 2008 and 2012, there was plenty of discussion about the candidate's campaign, issues and everything else - including negatives.

Immediately throwing out everyone not 100% in sync with Clinton will mean that many long time people will leave -- and some of them are people you need to win over. Hillary needs the vast majority of Democrats behind her and a share of the independents. Intimidating people rather than reaching out to them is not a very good strategy - no matter what Mr Brock thinks.

[merrily]

51. Don't worry about us. Just tell the FBI they're wasting taxpayer $$$, STAT!

[CajunBlazer]

59. Nah, we need the FBI report to put to bed Trump's talking points

And oh, there're you talking points as well.

And there you are, a proud progressive, hoping that the Democratic nominee will be nailed by the FBI so that you defeated candidate can sneak in and get the nomination by the back door. You ought to be ashamed of yourself being being so selfish.

[tex-wyo-dem]

110. I'm a proud progressive and value the truth more than anything...

Most of the information I've seen so far not only points to Hillary doing a bunch of stupid shit that lacks an incredible amount of judgement, but that she and her aides and confidants broke the law multiple times and are in big trouble. We've also got the intelligence IG report to look forward to and comments from current and retired intelligence officials has been damning. I don't expect the IG report to be any less brutal.

And don't think for a second that even if the FBI exonerates her that this will "take away Trump's talking point". He will just frame it as a coverup.

[Jester Messiah]

53. Just because you insist it's so?

That's one piss-poor excuse for a bottom line.

[CajunBlazer]

61. No because it is so

Two can play at the short put down

[Jester Messiah]

65. When were you going to get started? n/t

[CajunBlazer]

69. I only really play that game with worthy opponents

You don't qualify

[Jester Messiah]

76. lol. Whatever you say chief. n/t

[Mike__M]

63. One lesson from this primary season

Americans are free to believe and insist it's whatever they want, and vote accordingly, thus Trump's success.

[HassleCat]

57. A different bottom line.

Clinton was just doing what she saw other doing, what they got away with. It's a good thing this will stop, although the choice of her and her emails to be investigated is the result of a partisan witch hunt. Even so, it's a practice that has to stop, and this will put a stop to it. That's the bottom line for me, the fact that a corrupt practice will end.

[CajunBlazer]

62. Explain your definition of the word "corruption"

Because it must be different from any definition four in the dictionary.

[HassleCat]

86. Using a private email server is definitely corrupt practice.

The purpose of doing so is to avoid being held accountable, to hide bribery or influence peddling, to cover up mistakes, to hide certain associations, or all of the above.

[wordpix]

66. with nuclear proliferation & our endless wars in the ME you would think

there are other concerns. Let's add education (the fact so many people are for Trump should tell you all you need to know about education in this country), the environment, income inequality, our frayed infrastructure, jobs, health care/insurance, etc. etc.

Bernie IMO is best on all this but so far, he is not winning. Just sayin' ---it's time to stop whacking Hillary and get behind her since it appears she'll be our nominee.

Hillary may well have used a private email server to keep her mail from prying Repuke eyes in the State Dept.---you know, BushCo holdovers. So don't be so quick to judge her on this. It's NOTHING compared to the major issues above, and I certainly don't want Don Drumpf to be handling all that.

[Vinca]

71. I had no idea someone involved with the FBI investigation was posting on DU.

Don't you get in trouble talking about your cases before there is a final determination?

[CajunBlazer]

79. Links:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-fbi-has-found-no-criminal-wrongdoing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297

[Vinca]

100. That's nice except the final determination hasn't been made.

No one can report it because it doesn't exist yet one way or the other.

[Fawke Em]

74. Yes she did.

And you're welcome to Google all the signatories (I'll admit that one of them is a co-cou bird, but the rest are whistle-blowers and national defense security experts). I work in data security and probably know more about it than most on this board, but I would defer to the vast majority of the people who signed this letter:

If you have a secured government computer operating off of a secure server that means that what is on the computer stays on the computer. This is not a matter of debate or subject to interpretation. It is how one safeguards classified information, even if one believes that the material should not be classified, which is another argument that has been made in Clinton’s defense. Whether or not the classification is unnecessary is not your decision to make.

Apart from the guidelines for proper handling of classified information, outlined in Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code, there is some evidence of a cover-up regarding what was compromised. This itself would be a violation of the 2009 Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Numerous messages both in New York and in Washington have reportedly been erased or simply cannot be found. In addition, the law cited above explicitly makes it a felony to cut and paste classified information removing its classification designation. Retaining such information on a private email system is also a felony. In one of Secretary Clinton’s emails, she instructed her staff simply to remove a classification and send the information to her on her server.

So the question is not whether Secretary Clinton broke the law. She did. If the laws are to be equally applied, she should face the same kind of consequences as others who have been found, often on the basis of much less convincing evidence, guilty of similar behavior.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/24/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-clintons-emails

[libdem4life]

87. Gosh, I've lost count of the Here's the Bottom Line threads.

How can it be? Prescience, wishful thinking, arrogance, FBI irrelevancy, math aficionados?

Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying....that's about it.

[angrychair]

89. Hey, your the person that post neo-Nazi hate sites against Sanders

So, based on the websites you used against Sanders, like tomatoebubble, I think we all know where you stand.

I know, I know, you "don't agree with it but people will say" argument is your retort. If your ok using neo-Nazi, anti-Semetic hate sites to attack a Democratic candidate than so be it I guess:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251941346

[rateyes]

90. Mr. Comey , is that you? Otherwise, you

Don't know the bottom line.

[polly7]

92. 'Keep an coming' Blulmenthal. Getting Obama on board 'an early Christmas present'.

The bottom line - her hawkish policy has destroyed the lives of millions, not just in Libya due to that sham, but all over the world.

[morningfog]

94. Your post is filled with falsehoods.

She was not in compliance with the federal records laws. She violated those laws. The OIG found that in black and white.

I, as most Bernie supporters, are not hoping she faces criminal charges. That would be horrendous.

But we don't know all the facts yet. The OIG report raised more questions than answers. The FBI will answer those questions.

The real bottom line is that Hillary is a huge risk and a huge liability to the Dems this fall.

[LAS14]

99. Thanks for hanging in there and rebutting...

... these smears, CajunBlazer.

[tonyt53]

105. Not no way, not no how will the Bernie-ites ever stop their nonsense.

It will be more cheating and conspiracies.

[frylock]

106. ..

[Android3.14]

108. "it was her freaking department"

This is why I support Sanders over Hillary.

[LAS14]

109. E-mail flap is like Benghazi flap is like Whitewater flap is like Vince foster flap is like...

...the Travelgate flap, etc., etc.